A New Economic Order?

Brandon Sun “Small
World” Column, Sunday, November 30 / 08Zack
Gross

People
working in international charities recently met in Ottawa to discuss
how the current economic “downturn” will affect their fundraising from
ordinary citizen donors, and the prospects for support from larger
funders, such as government. Most people at the meeting were
feeling gloomy, pointing to the fact that donations are already
reportedly down throughout the non-profit community, with food banks,
as an example, having to deal with empty shelves.

One
person, however, struck a different note. He’s an old-timer, like
me, who has been involved in international development throughout a
long career, working in the churches and advocacy groups on issues such
as Third World debt and the Make Poverty History campaign. His
opinion was that current global financial troubles would cause the
public to re-think the efficacy of our world economic order, and change
to become less trusting of “business as usual” and more supportive of
economic justice and trade fairness. He felt that the financial
crisis would ultimately be a positive for the marginalized of the world.

At
this time, prospects for the world’s poor are not good. In 2007,
overall aid to developing countries actually dropped by 8.4%, making
the possibility of our meeting the United Nations Millennium
Development Goals by the target 2015 date very uncertain.

Last
summer, the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO) collapsed
for a third time as developing countries refused to allow increased
access to their markets by the United States and other major economic
powers.

The recent international food crisis, which saw
hunger rise along with prices, has been coupled with the failure of all
industrialized countries to meet the 0.7% of GDP aid target, which has
been promised by governments for a generation. One hundred
million more people have joined the ranks of the hungry. A
fraction of the money thrown into the bank bailout would have
eradicated the debt of the world’s one hundred poorest countries and
allowed them to meet their people’s basic needs.

Aid,
fairer trade and other measures do create sustainable wealth, but need
to be enacted at the highest and broadest levels. Our idea of aid might
be an NGO-sponsored project in Africa, and of fair trade might be
purchasing certified coffee at the supermarket. Beyond this, a
paradigm shift must happen at the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank and other global bodies.

Industrialized economies
want access to Third World markets without trade barriers, and have
been supported by these international financial institutions in this to
the detriment of poorer countries. Europe and North America are
“dumping” subsidized, cheap products on Third World markets, destroying
their economies, while not allowing them access to our markets.
Prices for cocoa, coffee and cotton, as examples, are way down, adding
to the poverty.

The New Economy Information Service is a think
tank set up in Washington to study the effects of globalization.
One of its findings is that corporate interests prefer dealing with
dictatorships in their business and financial dealings. While
South Africa and Eastern European countries struggle to establish
democracies, it is China that has become an economic power, with its
goods dominating store shelves, while bringing with it a litany of
consumer issues here and environmental and human rights issues
there.

An interesting detail in the NEIS study is that
in the decade after the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, goods
imported into the US from democratic countries dropped from over half
to just about a third. During that time, 1989 to 1999, China
moved from No. 18 in imports into the US to No. 4 and, of course, is
now an undisputed No. 2, behind only Canada. It would seem
that, in the opinion of some, lower wages, more lax environmental laws,
bans on unions and tax breaks for the elite make for “good business.”

Unlike
his outgoing predecessor George W. Bush, Barack Obama has been speaking
out on the need for greater environmental regulation and tougher labour
laws. While it is too early to tell, “free traders” are concerned
that this is really an expression of protectionism by the more
union-oriented Democratic Party. Many people in the world, now
plugged into everyday life through the Internet whether they be in
Africa, Asia or Latin America, are hoping the Mr. Obama brings with him
a “New Deal” that will benefit their bottom line - meeting those basic
needs of health and education.

The US economy, to which
Canadians and most “allies” are tied, has struggled under a number of
factors. The daily cost of war is one. Even in Canada,
opposition parties have found it difficult to access figures on the
cost of our Afghanistan mission. With the holiday season on the
horizon, is it possible that we might find, in our economic wilderness,
a way forward to peace, justice and prosperity? It may be too
much to expect, but any progress toward a better world will come with
us demanding what doesn’t always seem possible – a re-thinking of our
economic principles, policies and relationships.